alternative proposals to the government's brexit strategy. they voted on four motions — all were rejected. prime minister, theresa may, will hold a lengthy meeting of her cabinet later on tuesday to discuss what to do next. the us supreme court has ruled that a convicted murderer on death row in missouri has no right to a "painless death". the ruling handed down by five judges of the supreme court clears the way for the execution of russell bucklew, a convicted murderer. fans and hip hop performers have been paying tribute to rapper and song—writer nipsey hussle. the grammy—nominated star was killed outside his clothing store in los angeles over the weekend. he was much respected for his work in his community. two other people were injured in the attack. police are still looking for a suspect. now on bbc news,

monday in parliament: hello, welcome to monday in parliament. as mps once again try to whittle down the brexit options but for a second time there's no majority for any plan. the ayes, 273. the noes, 276. the noes have it. a conservative behind one of the compromise motion quotes —— quits the party is in despair. i have failed, chiefly because my party refuses to compromise. i regret, therefore, to announce that i can no longer sit for this party. away from brexit.

peers ask what the government's doing to tackle homelessness. and there are demands that the latest knife crime summit isn't just another talking shop. we need to see urgent action on school exclusions long—term police funding, mental health services, and on youth services and diversion for young people. but first: having failed to give a majority to any of the eight motions in front of them last week it was time for mps once again to try to find an option that could win support across the house. this time there were only four options to choose from. in the hope of a more conclusive outcome. the results when they came to the mps felt the back any of the options by a majority. well those votes came at the end of a day that had some rather unexpected developments. firstly a personal statement from the conservative richard drax. he said he'd been wrong to back the prime minister's deal at the end of last week. although doing what i believed to be

the countries best interest at that moment in time, i quickly realised that i should not have voted with the government on friday afternoon. i believe i let down good friends here in the house, and my friends and colleagues in the dup. i served on three operational tours in northern ireland, playing a small part in protecting the innocent and combating terrororism, i say sorry to the dup for voting for a deal that could risk the integrity of our country. and he called for mrs may to go. finally if the prime minister cannot commit to taking us out of the eu on the 12th of april, she must resign immediately! this is no longer about leave over remain. that was decided in '16. this is about the future of our great country and faith and trust in our democracy. spring is here, mr speaker. time for a new start for us all. let's take our country back in 11 days‘ time and fulfil our honourable duty.

those comments came just before mps debated and approved a motion allowing them to take control of the commons timetable for the day and if needed on wednesday too. and having approved that takeover the mps behind the four motions to set out the case for the different options. motions set out the case for the different options. firstly the veteran conservative ken clarke, once again put forward a plan to keep the uk in a customs union where countries don't put taxes known as tariffs on goods coming in from other countries in the union and set the same tariffs on goods entering from outside the union. it sets a basic agenda that i think will help to ensure that what i regard as the damaging consequences of leaving the eu are minimised and we can reassure the panic stricken sometimes business and other interest in this country who viewed the great unknown in the end of the common market with great concern. and i hope the public who are as polarised at this house

in their opinion of the moment will begin to be reassured and people will be reconciled on a compromise of leaving the political eu but staying in the common market to use the language of eurosceptics over the years. the motion from labour's peter kyle set out that any deal couldn't be ratified, unless it was approved in a referendum. but his speech was interrupted when a handful of environmental protestors stripped off down to their underwear in the public gallery and some appeared to superglue themselves to the glass. despite the unexpected display of naked flesh, peter kyle soldiered on with his speech. we must do what the country is desperate for. we must compromise by bringing together two minority positions to create a majority to move forward. so that he might be able to collect his thoughts and can ijust say i congratulate him

on the speaking in the way that he is, notwithstanding some other stuff that may be going on. in any event, would he agree with me it is important tonight that everybody believes that people's vote absolutely votes for a people's vote and does not get distracted by anything else? i am gratefulfor the intervention and what a great sight she is, focusing in front of me, much more so than the peripheral vision... laughter. can i thank him for the constructive way he has worked with those on the other side for the divide albeit who came to the same

conclusion as he has which is this, we can are they keep on and on seeing parliament as a failure delivering nothing or we can put this back. a conservative, nick boles put forward an idea that's become known as common market 2.0 where the uk would stay in the single market enabling goods, services, people and money to move between member states and enter a comprehensive customs arrangement after brexit. a brexit backing conservative pointed out what he saw as the problems with the plan. common market two would allow free movement of people in a way cost is billions to access the single market, we will be just a lot —— law takers and we would not be able to do free trade deals wasn't that the basic tenet of what we voted for in 2016? unfortunately, my friend is only right about some of those things.

it is true in normal days we will be subject to free movement because that is the price of single market impression. it is also true that we would have to pay over some financial contributions, though they will be probably of the order of half of what we currently have to pay. he is not correct to say we would be responsible to the european court ofjustice. you are subject to court with the common market. the thing about that there is no direct effect in assessment, they all have to be implemented by sovereign parliament before they take hold. so it is a substantially different relationship, one which we have a great deal more control. of course, and all of the areas other than a single market, and all of the political areas of the eu, who would be outside of them altogether and we would surely have taken a back control. common market 2.0 is the only brexit compromise that can

to make the irish backstop fall away altogether. the fourth motion came from the snp‘sjoanna cherry, setting up a process to revoke article 50 suspending brexit while an inquiry was held. she explained how it would work. if we cannot agree a deal by the 10th of april, everybody must see as a matter of that is highly unlikely, if we cannot agree a deal by the 10th of april, the date of the eu council, then this motion if it is past tonight when you mandate the government to ask first of all for an extension of the article 50 period and if the eu did not agree to that, the uk government, would requires a table of motion immediately asking this house to approve no deal. my motion goes on to say that assuming the house did not approve no deal — we can assume that given the many votes already — the united kingdom government would then be mandated to revoke

article 50 before we exit the eu with no deal late on the night of the 12th of april. a veteran labour mp backed peter kyle's plan for a confirmatory referendum. it seems to me we are likely to need a longer extension anyway for a whole variety of other reasons so why not take advantage of that reality to hold a confirmatory vote on the likely outcome of brexit, whatever happens on the deliberation. as did a conservative without it would be a way to get theresa may deal through. it could be argues, why are going back to the people but i am going back clearly and only and with a great degree of self—loathing to say this, i'm going back purely because parliament is unable to reach a majority and reach a decision. the motion calls for nothing in this house should be approved without a referenda but we have to agree with this house the side. and please engage in that process come together,

support a deal that protectsjobs in the economy and then put it to the british people. we believe it is essential to hold the people's vote on the final deal, ultimately, it must be a question of deciding between the things we know and which have worked well, though not perfectly for some of decades, and what those advocating for change can devise. as it is clear there is no agreement on what that has been, but what was started by a vote of the people must i think be ended by a vote by the people. labour said it would whip its mps to support all the options except that from joanna cherry. labour has long supported a customs union, it is a vital component of any deal which will generally protect manufacturing, and it is necessary to protect against a hard border in northern island, but i say again as i said last week, it must be a minimum and that is written into this amendment. the brexit secretary made clear why the government wouldn't back the options.

what we see today is a number of motions signed by people who just last friday rejected the withdrawal agreement, stood on manifestos which contradict the motion before the house, and in essence are saying today to colleagues across the house vote for a package which includes a part that they themselves rejected just a matter of days ago. and so after several more hours of debate mps went off to vote. once again they filled out a ballot paper and the speaker read out the results. in respect mr clark pass motion see, customs union, the ayes, were 273, the noes were 276. so the noes have it. in respect to mr nichols's motion d, common market 2.0, the ayes, 261, the noes, 282. the noes have it.

in respect of mr peter kyle's motion e, the confirmation vote, the ayes, 280, the noes, 292. the noes have it. in respect ofjoanna cherry‘s motion g, parliamentary supremacy, the ayes, 191, the noes, 292. the noes have it. so a close vote on ken clarke's customs union plan but no overall majority for anything. the brexit secretary responded to the result. this is now the second time the house has considered a wide variety of options for a way forward. it has once again failed to find a clear majority for any of the options. and yet, the result of the house decision on friday, not to endorse the withdrawal agreement, means that the default legal position is that the uk will leave the eu injust 11 days‘ time.

the government continues to believe that the best course of action is to do so as soon as possible. if the house were to agree a deal this week him and may still be possible to avoid holding european parliamentary elections. cabinet will meet in the morning to consider the results of tonight vote and how we should proceed. may i suggest that possibly the house should have a chance to consider again the options that we had before us today in a debate on wednesday? so that the house can succeed where the prime minister has failed in presenting a credible, economic relationship with europe for the future that prevents us crashing out with no deal. tonight, mr speaker, a vast majority of scottish mps have voted to revoke article 50. a vast majority of scottish mps have voted for a people's vote.

a vast majority of scottish mps have voted to stay in the single market and customs union. it is crystal clear to us from scotland that our votes in this house are disrespected. and nick boles, who was behind one of the options, for he could no longer stay in his party. i have failed chiefly because my party refuses to compromise. i regret, therefore, to announce that i can no longer sit for this party. 0h, nick. nick, don't go. come on! stay! the honourable gentlemen... applause. you're watching monday in parliament, with me, alicia mccarthy. don't forget, you can follow me on twitter @bbcalicia.

now, six million people signed a petition calling on the government to stop brexit by revoking article 50. two other petitions also attracted tens of thousands of signatures — one calling for brexit to be upheld, and another demanding a second referendum. when all three were debated in westminster hall, the labour mp catherine mckinnell said the public were sick of the endless debates in parliament. and it is because they are frankly sick to the back teeth of hearing about this issue. day in, day out, they have had enough of brexit dominating every single news bulletin, newspaper headline, or radio discussion. and understandably, they just want to. .. they just. .. they just want what has turned into a national nightmare to be finally over. and i, too, am angry. i am angry we spent three years not properly focusing on the myriad of issues that we know desperately

require our attention. she'd been speaking in support of the petition to hold a second referendum. a conservative said the motives of those backing another vote had been exposed. hasn't this petition shown really clearly and made the veil of the people's vote really drop here? one could argue that the people's vote, grand ambitions, let's have my chrissy, —— democracy but this is nothing to do with the vote. this is about revocation and will she be honest to say what her and others have been supporting through the people's vote is revocation, not some grand democratic rerun of a vote? i am not sure the honourable gentleman has been here for the full debate. he has not. so he was not here when i set out the three debates that we are debating today. this one is about revoking article 50, the previous petition was in relation to a second referendum on the eu debate. and i take great exception to the honourable gentleman

suggesting in some way that i am being dishonest in what i am saying. he did! order! i don't think the honourable gentleman was suggesting anything dishonest in any shape or form, therefore i think we not need ask him... he did! i think he did not. i'm sure he was not. however, the order will... i am sure he was not being that. he did suggest i should be honest. and i have been honest and i am being honest. and this petition is calling on the option of a revocation of article 50 to avoid us crashing out of the eu without the deal. shortly after that intervention, craig mackinlay left the debate, as did two other conservative backbenchers. 0ne mp found that contemptuous. i appreciate everybody‘s diary‘s busy in westminster but i find it extraordinarily at the end of the debate this afternoon, there is literally now

nobody on the side of the house that is responsible and responding to the size of this petition. does that not tell you how poorly the people in this country, 6 million who are terrified about the prospect of brexit, feel and this is supposed to be democracy? i find it absolutely startling. the brexit minister chris heaton—harris said the government wouldn't revoke article 50 and found the idea of another referendum pernicious. parliament last week again rejected these motions. second—guessing or otherwise reversing the outcome of the 2016 vote damages trust that british people place in its government and gives cause for british people to lose faith in politics in politicians and lose faith in the most important democratic process of all, which is voting. now, i recognise in the midst of this uncertainty, that the petition has questioned why the british people should not have a chance to have a second say on brexit, a second vote on brexit. but let me ask this. if we cannot show that we will

uphold and respect the result of one referendum, what guarantees could we give that we would respect and uphold the results of a second? would we need a third? is it best out of five? what prevents a third referendum still? would then, the uncertainty, the back—and—forth of asking the question end? when can we consider ourselves to have settled the question? and in the end, that debate ended without a vote. the day at westminster wasn't all about brexit. in the commons, there was another plea for urgent action to stop the sharp rise in fatal stabbings. a four—day summit on knife crime has got under way in downing street. one of the ideas being discussed is a new legal duty requiring teachers and health service workers in england to report their concerns over children who may be involved with knives. a similar scheme has driven down the rate of knife crime in scotland. if today's summit is to be nothing more than a talking shop, we need to see urgent action

on school exclusions, on long—term public funding, mental health services, and on youth services and diversion for young people. the systemic changes require a government with the capability and the will to act. when can this house be assured that this government has either? minister! we are already acting on all of the issues the honourable the honourable lady mentioned. part of the discussion that took place alongside the prime minister and other ministers with a whole range of experts all agree about the approach the government is taking underpinned by a public health approach. i welcome the public health approach into the knife crime summit that is happening. but i have to say to the home secretary that the evidence we have had on the home affairs select committee inquiry into serious violence suggests that his claim to be putting record amounts of funding into prevention is simply not credible. we were told by west midlands police they now have no police officers based in schools,

working on that crime prevention at all, because of the scale of cuts. that we had a third reduction in the youth service funding over the last few years. and also crucially, there has been a reduction of 50,000 people, that's 50,000 fewer people working on community safety and crime prevention. children's lives are being lost. it is crucial that investment into prevention takes place! mr speaker, first of all, the right honourable lady will be aware that we have the biggest increase in police resources — almost £1 billion, since 2010, the biggest cash increase which is gonna lead to the recruitment of over 3000 officers. but when it comes to early intervention, which i agree with her should be a priority, just last week, we confirmed that £200 million — a record amount that is going into the youth endowment fund, which will help many community organisations help young people turn away from crime. over in the lords, concerns

were raised that prisoners being released from jail were being given tents to sleep in. the comment came as peers debated the government's record on tackling rough sleeping. the communities minister said the aim was to end rough sleeping by 2027, and halve it by 2022. we are already taking action. last year, we published a cross—government strategy backed by £100 million of funding. the rough sleeping initiative launched a year ago provides over 1750 new bed spaces and 500 staff to support rough sleepers since march 2018. and it is making an impact. in rough sleeping initiative areas, rough sleeping decreased by 19% in the last year. but the peer who'd asked the question reckoned the government's figures didn't match with the numbers he'd been given, showing more people were on the streets and hostel beds had been lost. it does not add up. so i would suggest that we look at those again. but also, that we look

at the vagrancy act of 182a. which was also seen the imprisonment for some, usually arrest for thousands of people who were sleeping rough. that is certainly needs to be revoked. he is right. more needs to be done. but we are investing more money and we just announced another 53 areas that are benefiting from the rapid rehousing pathways money which is part of the initiative. he should know that the vagrancy act, we are looking at a review of that. i can offer that the noble lord a comfort on that point. is the noble minister aware of a particular problem in westminster of rough sleeping in tents? two things arise from that. one is the concern that drug dealing may be going on in the tents and secondly, although they have got powers, the police, i think, are reluctant to be too aggressive in addressing the problem. he is right that sensitive policing also helps in tackling these issues and that, i know, is something

that the police throughout the country are very aware of. he is also right there are a complex of range of issues, including addiction, which is very much an issue in relation to rough sleeping, and we are very intent on trying to deal with that. a former head of the metropolitan police picked up on those comments about the vagrancy act. it is often a point of contention with the police and those who live on the streets. i wonder if you can tell us a little bit more about when the review of the mission will conclude? i have been asked to chair at a debate in the next two weeks which is about the decriminalization of living on the streets. not about all aspects of the vagrancy law, but about living on the streets. something to have no control over. the second point, my lord raised just now about living in tents. i've heard recently that some people being let from prison, released from prison, are being given a tent because they cannot get accommodation. do i expect the minister to be able to answer that easily?

—— i do not expect the minister to be able to answer that easily but i wonder if somebody from the government will look at that and see if it is accurate, because it sounds to me unfair and not very good idea. my lords, on the second point, first if i may, i know nothing of that and it does sound on the surface of it alarming. if the noble lord has further information on that, i would be grateful if he can see beyond and i will investigate that. i'm the vagrancy act, i will have the right to the noble lord. i don't know when the consultation and review is ending and i agree with him to aspects of that that they require attention but once again, i think it is probably more complex and it looks on the surface but i will write to the noble lord on that issue. and that's it from me for now, david cornock will be with you for the rest of the week. but for now from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye.

0n on monday in the sunshine the temperature reached a high of 17 celsius but we're not going to see those sorts of temperatures for some time to come and any remaining warmth is being pushed away and instead this developing north to north—westerly will drag colder air across the whole of the country. the colder air is coming and actually behind this band of cloud and rain here that is heading towards the midlands for the rush hour in the morning, already to the north—west a peppering of quite wintry showers as well. this rain still quite heavy though for a while for the rush hour but works its way across east anglia and south—east later in the morning. a couple of hours of dry weather and sunshine follows and manager with come packing in almost anywhere could catch a shower and it could be heavy with hail and and sleet and snow over the hills, particularly in the north, and those temperatures are back down to 8— 10 degrees. we have an area of low pressure sitting in the north sea as we move into wednesday. that will push wetter weather back our way and all the

while, we are dragging down colder airfrom the arctic while, we are dragging down colder air from the arctic so this is the picture and we may well start with a touch of frost, one or two icy patches on wednesday morning, heavy snow for awhile over the north york moors but most of the wet weather looks like it is now going to come back into scotland, ran with snead and snow over the hills, sunshine and snow over the hills, sunshine and a you shop further south in the mind you, and the winds picking up, stronger gale force winds especially across northern and western parts of the uk so these other temperatures, similarto the uk so these other temperatures, similar to what we have seen on tuesday, perhaps lower, but when you add on the strength of the wind, this is what it is going to feel like so it is going to be a really cold feeling day, particularly in scotla nd cold feeling day, particularly in scotland underneath all of the wet weather, not too good at all. the wet weather and the cold feel, an area of low pressure and the cold airaround, the low

area of low pressure and the cold air around, the low pressure is going to take a shine to the uk, even into thursday, sitting very close by, so spiralling around it, we have these areas of shower along with spells of rain, the more sleet and snow over the high ground and perhaps a bit dry for eastern parts of england but the position of this wet weather subject to change, i suspect. and those temperatures only around 8— 10 degrees, getting cold again for northern scotland. and thatis again for northern scotland. and that is really the theme, cold few days, a lot of these april showers to come so winter is over the hills and with some clear skies at there may well be some frost as well.

welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: just 10 days before the uk is due to leave the european union, the cabinet will meet on tuesday, trying to work out what to do next. frustration in europe. in dramatic terms, the brexit coordinator for the european parliament says the uk has one more chance to break the deadlock or leave without any agreement. the us supreme court rules a convicted murderer on death row in missouri has no right to a "painless death".